On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Andy Farkas wrote: > > The scheduling of nice processes seems to be broken: This is actually a problem in the load balancer. It's not taking nice into consideration when attempting to balance the load. > > team2# nice -7 sh -c "while :; do echo -n;done" & > team2# nice -7 sh -c "while :; do echo -n;done" & > team2# sleep 120; top -S > > PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU CPU COMMAND > 675 root 133 -7 1576K 952K CPU1 1 1:52 75.78% 75.78% sh > 676 root 133 -7 1576K 952K RUN 1 1:39 73.44% 73.44% sh > 12 root -16 0 0K 12K RUN 0 18:46 55.47% 55.47% idle: cpu0 > 11 root -16 0 0K 12K RUN 1 7:00 0.00% 0.00% idle: cpu1 > > > Adding a third nice process eliminates the idle time, but cpu% is still bad: > > team2# nice -7 sh -c "while :; do echo -n;done" & > team2# sleep 120; top -S > > PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU CPU COMMAND > 705 root 133 -7 1576K 952K CPU0 0 1:53 100.78% 100.78% sh > 675 root 133 -7 1576K 952K RUN 1 12:12 51.56% 51.56% sh > 676 root 133 -7 1576K 952K RUN 1 11:30 49.22% 49.22% sh > 729 root 76 0 2148K 1184K CPU1 1 0:00 0.78% 0.78% top > 12 root -16 0 0K 12K RUN 0 24:00 0.00% 0.00% idle: cpu0 > 11 root -16 0 0K 12K RUN 1 7:00 0.00% 0.00% idle: cpu1 I agree that 100.78% is wrong. Also, the long term balancer should be kicking one sh process off of the doubly loaded cpu every so often. I'll look into this, thanks. Cheers, Jeff > > > The box is a dual P133 running -current from 8th Dec. > > -- > > :{ andyf_at_speednet.com.au > > Andy Farkas > System Administrator > Speednet Communications > http://www.speednet.com.au/ > >Received on Wed Dec 10 2003 - 19:03:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:33 UTC